Provincial Drilling for Hot Water in S. Giorgio Faces Delays and Disputes
In February, a private individual unsuccessfully requested the Province to carry out at their own expense (about 200 million lire), drilling on a piece of land in S. Giorgio in search of the probable hot water aquifer, hence thermal. After the negative response, which dates back to April, the provincial geological service now intends to carry out the drilling in the same area, obviously spending a few hundred million public euros.
Drilling situation and local discovery
It was discovered in Trento that the chosen and funded site for the “public excavation” (near the church of “Saitori”) is not suitable as previously thought. Here, an initial underground survey had been conducted, which identified mud at temperatures around 60-70 degrees Celsius. Now, as mentioned, the focus is shifting back to the private campaign.
And the dismay of the owners: the Tamburini family, well-known hoteliers from Arco. For now, they have not commented. They are waiting for the Province to officially announce the start of the drilling. “We would not want there to be a delay between planning and execution,” says Stefano, their son and a city councilor, “because the search for hot water in S. Giorgio is a long soap opera with unexplained contours, dragging on unresolved for years. Too long.”
History of funding and past initiatives
The former provincial tourism counselor Moser allocated 300 million lire to confirm the presence of the “blessed” water underground, which would allow Arco to become a thermal spa. The years passed, but nothing moved. Since the funds were not utilized, they were halved.
Last winter, it appeared that the provincial geologists had decided on drilling. Noticing that there were no drilling rigs visible in S. Giorgio, in February my family asked the Province to conduct the search, which does not mean using hot water, as there is a different procedure for that. With contributions from other people, we set aside 200 million lire for the work.
On April 4, the response was negative. Among the reasons given: insufficient funds and the presence of wells in the area that could be damaged. Now we will see…
